The WHO is part of the UN. The UN doesn't recognize Taiwan. It's as simple as that.

You're experiencing the 'criticising the CCP is forbidden' backlash with these downvotes, it's one of the HN voting system failures.

But you've hit on a problem: can we maintain global cooperative institutions in the face of an expansionist hegemonic power like China? I don't think we can, because anything controversial and it gets ripped apart.

The US and allied countries have their own national organizations, but even the EU is compromised on a number of issues, such as creeping fascism (Poland and Hungary) and the inability to take action against member states, or even coordinate in a pandemic. Even NATO is compromised by expansion to include such countries, and Turkey as well. So I'm questioning how useful large group multi-lateralism is for an organization like the WHO.

No he isn't. He is experiencing the "people will downvote dumb criticisms of climate science". The WHO's response to the pandemic is not in any way evidence that the IPCC is untrustworthy after decades of thorough study of climate change. That's the reason for downvotes, not because he criticized the CCP.

I'm sorry, he doesn't mention climate or the IPCC?

Edit: And I just scanned the last week of posts and can't see mention of anything like that. You're confusing with user koolba.

Large multinational organizations can have significant value, as NATO and the UN have shown in the past. But once the "regulatory capture" effect happens and the UN becomes a platform for genocidal dictatorships to spew anti-Semitic propaganda, we should discard that organization in favor of something better (even if "better" hypothetically had to be "nothing"). A truly global organization is, as you've explained, probably impossible because the bullies won't participate in a fair organization. But large regional organizations can still have value, as long as we recognize their limits and don't look to them for leadership that they can't adequately provide.